Home › Research › Biomarkers
Multimodal MRI analysis of basal forebrain structure and function across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum
Herdick M, Dyrba M, Fritz HJ, Altenstein S, Ballarini T, Brosseron F, Buerger K, Can Cetindag A et al.. NeuroImage. Clinical, 2020-11-11
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Dysfunction of the cholinergic basal forebrain (cBF) is associated with cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Multimodal MRI allows for the investigation of cBF changes in-vivo. In this study we assessed alterations in cBF functional connectivity (FC), mean diffusivity (MD), and volume across the spectrum of AD. We further assessed effects of amyloid pathology on these changes. Methods Participants included healthy controls, and subjects with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or AD dementia (ADD) from the multicenter DELCODE study. Resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) and structural MRI data was available for 477 subjects, and a subset of 243 subjects also had DTI data available. Differences between diagnostic groups were investigated using seed-based FC, volumetric, and MD analyses of functionally defined anterior (a-cBF) and posterior (p-cBF) subdivisions of a cytoarchitectonic cBF region-of-interest. In complementary analyses groups were stratified according to amyloid status based on CSF Aβ42/40 biomarker data, which was available in a subset of participants. Results a-cBF and p-cBF subdivisions showed regional FC profiles that were highly consistent with previously reported patterns, but there were only minimal differences between diagnostic groups. Compared to controls, cBF volumes and MD were significantly different in MCI and ADD but not in SCD. The Aβ42/40 stratified analyses largely matched these results. Conclusions We reproduced subregion-specific FC profiles of the cBF in a clinical sample spanning the AD spectrum. At least in this multicentric cohort study, cBF-FC did not show marked changes along the AD spectrum, and multimodal MRI did not provide more sensitive measures of AD-related cBF changes compared to volumetry.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Herdick, M., Dyrba, M., Fritz, H. J., Altenstein, S., Ballarini, T., Brosseron, F., et al. (2020). Multimodal MRI analysis of basal forebrain structure and function across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum. NeuroImage. Clinical. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102495
Vancouver
Herdick M, Dyrba M, Fritz HJ, Altenstein S, Ballarini T, Brosseron F, et al. Multimodal MRI analysis of basal forebrain structure and function across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum. NeuroImage. Clinical. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102495. PMID: 33395986.
BibTeX
@article{herdick2020-33395986,
author = {Herdick, M. and Dyrba, M. and Fritz, H. J. and Altenstein, S. and Ballarini, T. and Brosseron, F. and Buerger, K. and Can Cetindag, A. and others},
title = {{Multimodal MRI analysis of basal forebrain structure and function across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum}},
journal = {NeuroImage. Clinical},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102495},
pmid = {33395986},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102495}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Background Dysfunction of the cholinergic basal forebrain (cBF) is associated with cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD).
- Results a-cBF and p-cBF subdivisions showed regional FC profiles that were highly consistent with previously reported patterns, but there were only minimal differences between diagnostic groups.
- Compared to controls, cBF volumes and MD were significantly different in MCI and ADD but not in SCD.
- The Aβ42/40 stratified analyses largely matched these results.
- At least in this multicentric cohort study, cBF-FC did not show marked changes along the AD spectrum, and multimodal MRI did not provide more sensitive measures of AD-related cBF changes compared to volumetry.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants477
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage. Clinical) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 477 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33395986) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 40 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “structure”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “structure”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.